The day after Iran gets the bomb
Former Spook has an interesting analysis about yesterday's non-statement by Prime Minister Ehud K. Olmert about making plans for a nuclear-armed Iran.Despite the official denials, cabinet member Ami Ayalon told Reuters there is a need for a three-point strategy against Iran:I've said in the past that I expect the Bush administration to hit Iran in the summer of 2008. I'm going to withdraw that prediction because Former Spook is right - if there's a tight Presidential race going, even though Bush is a lame duck, that could tilt it to the Democrats. Of course if the Republican nominee is someone who has already said he will go after Iran (Giuliani, Tancredo) that may not make a difference. But let's assume that a Bush strike on Iran will hurt whomever the Republican nominee is and therefore it will be put off until after the election.
"First, we must make clear that this is a threat not just to Israel, but to the wider world. Second, we must exhaustively consider all preventive options. And third, we must anticipate the possibility of those options not working," Ayalon said.
...
Reading between the lines, we believe the Israeli comments reflect a number of considerations, and they're aimed at both domestic and American audiences. First, the statement is an indirect admission that there are limits on Israel's ability to strike Iran. As we've noted in the past, the IAF is constrained by its ability to provide in-flight refueling for an air strike against Iran, and the need to cross hostile airspace.
Given those limitations, an IAF attack would likely be a "one-time" operation, involving a relatively limited number of F-16Is, F-15Is and KC-707s (with probably no more than 24 strike aircraft). That means elements of Iran's nuclear program might escape serious damage, and could be quickly reconstituted. The problem is further exacerbated by the possibility that Tehran has a parallel, covert nuclear effort, in locations unknown to Israeli or western intelligence.
That's why the Israelis would prefer that the U.S. take military action against Iran. American carriers in the Gulf--and Air Force expeditionary winds based in the Middle East--could launch a sustained aerial bombardment of Tehran's key military and nuclear facilities, reducing survival prospects for key installations, equipment and personnel.
But that creates serious problems for Washington, both politically and militarily. On the political side, there are concerns that an attack against Iran would completely destroy GOP prospects for retaining the White House in 2008. While President Bush's decision-making has never been controlled by polls and electoral concerns, he is not oblivious to the political ramifications of attacking Iran.
Additionally, a number of senior U.S. military officials have recently noted that a "new front" against Iran would place a further strain on our armed forces, already stretched-thin by the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan. While none of those officials have stated that we lack the capability to attack Iran, they have cautioned that expanded operations would come at a very high price, particularly in terms of money and equipment.
And, if Mr. Bush takes a pass on striking Iran before his term ends, then it's all-but-certain that a Democratic predecessor [successor CiJ] would also refrain from military action. That's why those Israeli comments (conveniently offered to a Reuters correspondent) are also aimed at Democratic presidential hopefuls. Tel Aviv has no confidence in the willingness of a Democratic administration to deal forcefully with Tehran--and those concerns are well-founded. Not long ago, one of the party's leading presidential hopefuls suggested that he would be willing to talk with Ahmadinejad, the same man who has suggested that Israel should be "wiped off" the map.
With their own military options limited--and the U.S. seemingly unable to act, it's no wonder that Israel is growing increasingly pessimistic in its outlook. With the world community unwilling to aggressively confront Iran, and with military options apparently limited, planning for "The Day After" may become Israel's policy by default.
My current sense of the situation is that if a Democrat wins the Presidential election, Bush is much more likely to attack, especially if he has not succeeded in making 'peace' between Israel and the 'Palestinians' and therefore he is still in need of a legacy. Of course, Condoleeza Rice and Robert Gates will not go along with that, but no one has elected either of them President. If a Republican wins, look for Bush to coordinate with whomever wins.
Israel's biggest problem is that Prime Minister Olmert doesn't have the courage to undertake a strike against Iran, and at the moment it appears likely that Olmert will still be around a year from now. Ironically, striking Iran could do wonders for his political standing, because Israelis tend to rally around their leaders in wartime (recall the spike in Olmert's poll numbers last summer until everyone realized that the war was going so poorly), and because the (right wing) opposition here will certainly back such a move. But I don't expect Olmert to attack Iran. He was burned in Lebanon last summer. If Bush or a Republican successor does not attack, Former Spook is right: We will have to deal with a nuclear Iran.
posted by Carl in Jerusalem @ 12:43 PM
2 Comments:
I think the only way that Bush attacks Iran is when he is actually a lame duck i.e. after the 2008 election - not the summer before (he is not a lame duck until after the election).
Bush for all his faults is a man respectful of the office of president and its traditions, more like his father and unlike Bill Clinton and James I hate Jews Carter, who still seem to be running for office.
If a republican is elected, Bush would no doubt have the blessing of his successor, but if Hillary is elected it could get interesting.
While no US president has ever launched a military strike during the lame duck period, I think this could be an exception. Hillary has much to gain by secretly agreeing to giving her blessing to Bush striking Iran (as Bush would no doubt make a prerquisite before striking) but publicly denouncing Bush for it.
Bush would take the heat stating that he promised that he would not let Iran get the nuke, and that he is going to keep his promises (of course unlike he has done with Israel).
In short, Hillary lets Bush do her dirty work. She does not have political fallout with her base but simply more piling on Bush occurs. Hillary reaps the additional benefit of governing with one less threat to world peace hanging over her head and does not have to face history by being the person who could have prevented a nuclear war but failed to do so. Win/win for Hillary and we all know how much Hillary loves political games like this.
The only way I see it happening before the election is if the republican nomninee is trailing badly in the polls and the nominee agrees to the attack as a hail mary strategy. Bush can say that he fears with the republicans trailinig in the polls, he knows that the cowardly democrats will do nothing. I think the US republican base would support such a move and especially if the nominee is Rudy, would engergize the evangelical crowd who as much as the hate abortion, loves Israel and hate Islamic extremism.
Either way, it is not out of the policital question that Bush attacks Iran between November 2008 and January 2009, or even before.
I personally do not think Bush will do anything and he will leave Iraq and Afganistan and "Palestine" as his legacy, but as discussed above, there is not a lack of political options to get it done.
Additionally, a number of senior U.S. military officials have recently noted that a "new front" against Iran would place a further strain on our armed forces, already stretched-thin by the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Thanks to 8 years of Clinton tearing down our military.
I fear a nuclear Iran,Israel and/or the US needs to do something before it is too late...
/Shalu shalom Yerushalayim
Post a Comment
<< Home